SPOILERS AHEAD FOR THE NON-READERS OF ANGELS AND DEMONS, YE HAVE BEEN WARNED

I pretty much looked at =Thanatophilia's poll and decided to take the question and run with it.

I've read Angels and Demons, and I liked it better than The Da Vinci Code. Admittedly, there were parts that dragged, but that could be said about quite a lot of things. In general, though, I enjoyed the book and was rather disappointed with the movie adaptation.

I had high expectations (I guess I shouldn't have) but that was because I visited Rome last summer and, on a free day, decided to visit some of the Churches mentioned in the book - Namely the Santa Maria della Vittoria and the Chigi Chapel in the Piazza del Popolo. I can honestly say that those particular sites get absolutely no tourism whatsoever; On one of the most crowded days in the Vatican, Santa Maria della Vittoria had...basically no one inside. This is a place that houses one of Bernini's most well-known pieces ([link]). The Chigi Chapel was no different, particularly since it had three of Caravaggio's works...

...to be honest, I think that the film gave the sites good press, because they might actually be able to afford the upkeep for the Churches, now. Chigi Chapel is in great disrepair, and while the S. Maria della Vittoria is small, its ornate Baroque interior ([link] and [link]) costs a pretty penny to maintain.

I also had high expectations because they were filming the movie when I was there. Thirty-odd film trucks ([link]) were parked in front of Castel de Sant Angelo ([link]), and we watched Tom Hanks get ushered into the building surrounded by film crew and policeman. Half the Chigi Chapel was blocked off ([link]) ([link]) ([link]) when I visited - I had to persuade the priest (In my rather broken Italian) to let me wander in and look around. It was worth it, though. The 'Demon's Hole' that they frequently mention is indeed one of the most subtly terrifying things I have ever encountered. Indeed, so was this horror ([link]).

LOL DISCREPANCIES

There were quite a few things that really irked me, though. Mostly because I hate the fact that they used so much CGI for the movie. For God's sake, people. You are in one of the most beautiful and historical cities in the ENTIRE WORLD and you choose to use computer-generated imagery? Boo. I can understand some limitations concerning what the Church would allow for filming, but considering the fact that more people would be tempted to visit Rome now, you think they'd make a little leeway.

Now I'm really going to nitpick. In the Piazza Navona, which has the Fountain of the Four Rivers, they kept showing everyone the little dove on top of the obelisk. For fuck's sake, Hollywood. That bird's wings are closed. If you were there, filming the goddamn thing, you'd know that it looks like this --> ([link]). Also. People film in the Vatican Square all the time. Surely they could have gotten a film crew there, shut off about twenty square feet for a brief moment to capture what the bas relief of the West Wind REALLY looks like. It is NOT pure white marble, like the other three ([link]) ([link]) ([link]), but actually has a stripe of orange which makes it easier to recognize, as seen here ([link]).

Seriously.

What.

I think I would have had more respect for the film if it followed the book a little more closely. Admittedly, that's a lot to ask for in today's books-to-movies, especially considering the plethora of plot twists that Dan Brown likes to employ (I have the feeling that movie would have lasted at least two hours longer if they covered everything), but a lot of the details in the book are lost in the film if they're not mentioned. Like...the Hassassin going out and sexing expensive prostitutes. It might not have benefited the plot (Well, it did if you consider Vittoria, but I really disliked her actress), but it sure as Hell would have given us more incentive to hate him. Some characters were eliminated entirely. And only three out of the four cardinals were killed.

I had a big problem with that.

So...well...no offense to anyone who genuinely enjoyed the film, but as someone who likes to cling to the pages of her books and demand that they keep the important bits, I was disappointed. I enjoyed being able to see the places that I'd actually visited in an 'action movie', as it were, but I kept grimacing every time they screwed something up (Historically accurate-wise). I look forward to the next Robert Langdon book, but I'm hoping they won't make another movie.

On the upside, at least Tom Hanks' hair didn't look like roadkill in this film.